Wanat Marta, Borek Aleksandra J, Pilbeam Caitlin, Anthierens Sibyl, Tonkin-Crine Sarah
Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.
Department of Family Medicine and Population Health, University of Antwerp, Antwerp, Belgium.
Front Sociol. 2022 Aug 11;7:953872. doi: 10.3389/fsoc.2022.953872. eCollection 2022.
As the COVID-19 pandemic has shown, setting up studies in time to gather relevant, real-world data enables researchers to capture current views and experiences, focus on practicalities on the ground, and deliver actionable results. Delivering high quality rapid studies in healthcare poses several challenges even in non-emergency situations. There is an expanding literature discussing benefits and challenges of conducting rapid research, yet there are relatively few examples related to methodological dilemmas and decisions that researchers may face when conducting rapid studies. In rapidly-changing emergency contexts, some of these challenges may be more easily overcome, while others may be unique to the emergency, magnified, or emerge in different ways. In this manuscript, we discuss our reflections and lessons learnt across the research process when conducting rapid qualitative interview studies in the context of a healthcare emergency, focusing on methodological issues. By this we mean the challenging considerations and pragmatic choices we made, and their downstream impacts, that shaped our studies. We draw on our extensive combined experience of delivering several projects during the COVID-19 pandemic in both single and multi-country settings, where we implemented rapid studies, or rapidly adapted an existing study. In the context of these studies, we discuss two main considerations, with a particular focus on the complexities, multiple facets, and trade-offs involved in: (i) team-based approaches to qualitative studies; and (ii) timely and rapid data collection, analysis and dissemination. We contribute a transparent discussion of these issues, describing them, what helped us to deal with them, and which issues have been difficult to overcome. We situate our discussion of arising issues in relation to existing literature, to offer broader recommendations while also identifying gaps in current understandings of how to deal with these methodological challenges. We thus identify key considerations, lessons, and possibilities for researchers implementing rapid studies in healthcare emergencies and beyond. We aim to promote transparency in reporting, assist other researchers in making informed choices, and consequently contribute to the development of the rapid qualitative research.
正如新冠疫情所显示的那样,及时开展研究以收集相关的真实世界数据,能使研究人员获取当前的观点和经验,关注实际情况,并得出可付诸行动的结果。即使在非紧急情况下,在医疗保健领域开展高质量的快速研究也面临诸多挑战。关于开展快速研究的益处和挑战的文献不断增多,但与研究人员在进行快速研究时可能面临的方法困境和决策相关的例子相对较少。在快速变化的紧急情况下,其中一些挑战可能更容易克服,而另一些挑战可能是紧急情况所特有的、被放大或呈现出不同的形式。在本手稿中,我们将讨论在医疗紧急情况下进行快速定性访谈研究的整个研究过程中的思考和经验教训,重点关注方法学问题。我们指的是我们做出的具有挑战性的考量和务实选择,以及它们对我们研究的后续影响。我们借鉴了在新冠疫情期间在单国和多国环境中开展多个项目的丰富经验,在这些项目中我们实施了快速研究,或迅速调整了现有研究。在这些研究的背景下,我们讨论两个主要考量因素,特别关注其中涉及的复杂性、多个方面和权衡:(i)定性研究的基于团队的方法;(ii)及时且快速的数据收集、分析和传播。我们对这些问题进行了透明的讨论,描述了它们、帮助我们应对这些问题的因素以及难以克服的问题。我们将出现的问题的讨论与现有文献相关联,以提供更广泛的建议,同时也找出当前在如何应对这些方法学挑战的理解方面的差距。因此,我们确定了研究人员在医疗紧急情况及其他情况下开展快速研究的关键考量因素、经验教训和可能性。我们旨在促进报告的透明度,帮助其他研究人员做出明智的选择,从而为快速定性研究的发展做出贡献。